Not surprisingly, Finkelstein’s line of argument places him quite at odds with a great many Jews, not least among them is Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University. 

I have read some of  Norman Finkelstein’s writings, including his book The Holocaust Industry.  Indeed, I have corresponded with him a bit.  I disagree with the basic tenor of the book.  But one has to give him credit for being forthright in advancing his views.  It may be said, with perhaps some justification, that he has mischaracterized the Jewish mindset.  Just so, he cannot be characterized as antisemitic—at least not as this term is properly used.  For Finkelstein does not hate Jews or wish that they did not exist.  On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that, at the very least, Finkelstein often says things in a manner that can only be regarded as inflammatory.  In The Holocaust Industry, Finkelstein’s remarks about Elie Wiesel come across as awfully harsh and mean-spirited. 

Still, there is much to be said for the expression attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.  This saying embodies an ideal that is one of the cornerstones to democracy.  Retreat from this principle; and democracy flounders mightily.

I understand that Dershowitz and Finkelstein have crossed swords.  In fact, one can find an entry to this effect on the Wikopedia site. 

But it was downright petty for Dershowitz to lobby DePaul University against granting Finkelstein tenure.  This I say for several reasons.  For one thing, I would not have thought the matter any of Dershowitz’s business unless he was asked to evaluate Finkelstein’s tenure file.  Second, Dershowitz is a most eminent Harvard University legal scholar whose standing and well-being is not in the least bit affected negatively by whatever diatribe against his views is launched by Finkelstein.  Third, when DePaul University hired Finkelstein, his reputation for a being a strident critique of the prevailing Jewish mindset regarding the Holocaust was well in place.  So it is not as if DePaul had reason to think that it was hiring a save-the-whale advocate, say, only to end up with a staunch critic of the Jewish mentality. 

And if these considerations were not enough, there is the matter of impropriety.  It is simply inappropriate for outsiders to meddle in a university's tenure deliberating process.  Any attempt to meddle in Harvard's tenure deliberating process would be met with utter opprobrium; and if anyone knows this, sure Dershowitz does.  DePaul University deserves the very same respect.   Dershowitz cross the line.

Whatever else is true, it can be that Finkelstein has had the courage of his convictions.  I suppose that civil discussions involving deep disagreements over the Holocaust and Israel are hard to come by.  And I suppose further that Dershowitz is not much used to having his views regarding Israel and Jews be challenged so vehemently by, of all person, a Jew.  Still, the fact of the matter is that Finkelstein did not create some powerful political or social storm that Dershowitz had to weather.  Roughly speaking, Finkelstein’s allies were (already?) persuaded that his arguments were right and his opponents were (already?) convinced that his arguments were wrong.  In the end, there was not any real change.  The battle-lines were already well-entrenched.  The real difference is none other than that a most vocal opponent of Israeli policies and prevailing attitudes among Jews towards the Holocuast came from none other than a Jew, namely Norman Finkelstein. 

Recall once more the phrase attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.  Surely this ideal applies equally to Jews and Arabs and whites and blacks and straights and gays.  And so on.  Surely this ideal applies even when our opponent is, as they say, “one of our own”.  And just as surely, this has to be an ideal that Dershowitz should embrace.  He should embrace it were his standing none other than that of a pauper.  A fortiori, given his standing in society, Dershowtiz should have embraced this principle in connection with his disagreements with Finkelstein regarding Israel and Jews.

Now, I abhor academicians on the Left who refuse to tolerate diversity of opinion when it comes to such lightening-rod issues as abortion or affirmative action or gay rights or feminism.  My sentiments do not change one iota when those on the Right do exactly the same thing.  Wherever Mr. Dershowitz is on the political spectrum, he has done what is abhorrent in opposing Finkelstein’s tenure at DePaul University and lobbying against it.  As far as I can tell, they have both crossed the line of civility. 

I have absolutely no chance in this life time of ever being a professor at Harvard.  But I can say that if I were Dershowitz's colleague, I would be embarrassed by his behavior.  Because if universities cannot protect freedom of expression what institutions can?  And if Dershowitz cannot support academic freedom, even when it involves someone who disagrees vehemently with him, then he has thereby cheapened the ideal of freedom.  Dershowitz's tactics are woefully unbecoming of the man he is, one whom I have in fact greatly admired.

I have cited and reiterated the expression attributed to Voltaire precisely because I believe in it with all my heart.  I do not, in fact, share Finkelstein’s views; and I can think of numerous instances in what I have read by him where what we get is not so much an argument but an attempt at character assassination.  I hinted at this in connection with his comments upon Wiesel.  I deplore character assassinations whether they are done by the Left or the Right or the Non-descript. 

Now, to be sure, there are positions that, as a matter of principle, are morally reprehensible.  Although Finkelstein is quite strident in his criticisms of the Jewish mentality regarding the Holocaust and the deeds of the State of Israel, he clearly stops short of the kind of the abhorrent things people say in denying the ignominy of the Holocaust.  He did not, for instance, support Iran's conference on denying the Holocuast. 

Dershowitz clearly knows all of this.  Integrity would have recommended silence on Dershowitz’s part.  Vengeance, on the other hand, recommends precisely the sort of behavior that we get: an intellectual giant, with more professional capital than he could ever exhaust, setting out to destroy someone’s career because that someone attacked one of his pet ideological positions.  This time around, it would appear that the bigger man is Finkelstein.

Finally, I should point for the record that there is no doubt whatsoever that Finkelstein's denial of tenure has anything at all to do with the lack of professional standing.  A prolific writer, he has more professional visibility than most faculty members can even dream of having.  

Presumably, Mr. Dershowitz thinks that cartoon caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed should be protected by free speech.   It is sheer hypocrisy, on Dershowitz's part, to take that stand and while viciously attacking Finkelstein.  Free speech isn't worth a damn if we cannot apply it and defend it when matters hit close to home.  And if this were not enough, Mr. Dershowitz once defended O. J. Simpson himself.  That, of course, was Dershowitz's choice.  But this tells us something profound about his priorities.  A man who kills, namely O. J. Simpson, can be defended by Dershowitz; whereas a man who vehemently criticizes Jewish mentality regarding the Holocaust, namely Norman Finkelstein, is one whose career Dershowitz must destroy.  One does not have to agree all with Finkelstein's views, as indeed I do not, in order to see that there is something morally fulsome with this picture.